The Instigator
Mead
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
twighlighttrees
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Will arguing help or detriment your cause? (For: Argue, Against: Don't)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 912 times Debate No: 45633
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Mead

Pro

One question we must all find ourselves asking is whether the arguing we put forth is going to benefit others, and I also find that others in society would like to question the reasoning behind our arguments.

What do I think?
When someone argues, they use his/her best rhetorical skill. They have the goal of winning in mind, but that, at least to society, is considered a very selfish motive.
While there are times which call to be selfish, others do not. What if I told you that arguing, while thought of as selfish, actually helps others as well as allows one to continue his/her arguing? I find that to get to this logic I must find myself picturing every avenue that this can stem, of which is not very complicated.
One: The arguer does not influence the other,
Two: The arguer influences the other toward his/her beliefs.
We could allude to a free lottery ticket, whether one is against or for gambling is beside the point, but if one who, on a regular basis, gambles happens to obtain a free gambling ticket, would one say that they shouldn't use it because it's selfish?

Debating and arguing are two different things, do not get them confused; at times of irrationality, debating may seem nearly impossible.
twighlighttrees

Con

I would like to, before I begin, thank my opponent for providing the topic of the debate. I will argue my opponents standpoint that arguing will only help an individuals case.

I would also like to challenge my opponents definition of argument and debate as well as define other terms. My opponent by what I can infer by the way his argument is presented he believes debate and argument to differ by the fact an argument is informal and a debate is formal. While this is true it does not mean they are essentially the same thing. please read to my elaboration below.

1. Debate- to talk or argue about something: to talk about something at length and in detail, especially as part of a formal exchange of opinion

2. Argument- Argument, controversy, dispute imply the expression of opinions for and against some idea.

3. Arguer- A person who takes part in a dispute.

We can see in the definitions alone provided by Merriam Webster Dictionary that a debate and argument while different in which the formality that they happen are indeed the same thing. They are both an exchange of ideas for or against a cause. Even as further proof arguments are given within a debate. When you clicked on the button to read our statements, did that button say arguments or debates?

The debate in the topic is "will arguing help or detriment your cause?" while my opponent lists an example in which it appears one debater is selfish for brining up his case this does not answer the question. This example only displays a scenario in which the debater is seen in a bad light but not his case. Although a debater may appear to be selfish the debate at hand and weather or not its detrimental to his cause is the main point my opponent should bring up.

I have here listed an example of an argument according to my opponent after all this is proven not to be taken as a debate again defined by my opponents definition.
In renaissance times the supposed "fact" that the earth did not moved was challenged by an astronomer named Galileo. The church at this time based its evidence of biblical scripture that the earth is firmly established it cannot move. (1 chronicles 16:30)
However, Galileo was able through explaining heliocentrism proved this was not the case. Galileo in turn was convicted of heresy, here we can see where my opponents example comes into play, in a form, however his argument was fact and cannot be disproven. You may be asking why does this matter, doesn't this just prove arguments help your case? Well it matters because the churches position was proven to be false and Galileo's teachings became widespread and replaced those of the church. As we can see the argument was detrimental to the churches case. According to my opponent in his remarks this is not possible for the churches argument to be hurt. Allow me to elaborate further.

My opponent argues that because someone brings a topic up for an argument the end result will be one of the two following scenarios.
1. The arguer does not influence the other
2. The arguer influences the other toward his/her belief.
These examples only come to one conclusion that the arguer cannot lose his case or, that his case will only be neutral ground. However as seen very evidently in many debates and my example there is a possibility of one opponent losing his argument and his case be detrimentally hurt or even erased from the realm of possibility. My opponent does not recognize this as a possible outcome in his argument and therefore in order to be correct that an argument can only be beneficial he must be able to refute any situation I can provide in which an argument has been detrimental to one parties cause.
I look forward to my opponents counter arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Mead

Pro

Hello twilighttrees!
Interesting response, though I must admit, after reading through your response I realize maybe you thought I was being a little vague, as some of your addresses came from things that were not said, implied, or meant. So let me clear these up before I continue the debate from where you would have liked me to.

#1, Merriam Webster is a dictionary, as I hope we all know, and one of the tough jobs of all dictionary companies is to put what is pictured in our brains into words, and they did a very good job. They listed every possible picture anyone could ever use the word in, but that does not help us much, at least not myself. What I want is a standard definition that is the baseline, and if you would like to use another word, well then by all means go ahead, but that baseline is still going to be there.
I had no implication of straying from this standard definition, I find it quite odd that you say I did.
In concern to "argument":
(Merriam Webster) "The conversation resulting in red-faced frustration is the connotation of the term, not the denotation." When I told you that debate and arguments are different, here is what was meant:
Debate: Civil, orderly, each opponent takes his/her turn.
Argument: Anger filled, cutting off often involved, louder.
Now I know that debates are good because they help to evolve one's ideas (I think we all agree they are good, hence the reason we are visiting a debate website). But arguments? Arguments arouse hatred (some are small, and thus this is little), and our body gets stressed as a result of such (again some are small, and this would result in little stress). Though you should not get these confused with the main idea which is do arguments help your cause, them getting mad is not worsening your cause (your belief set).

Your cause is the important part of the argument, it is why you started it, and what you want others to believe in after it, one may argue that stress as a result means you should not have an argument, but I will cover this more later.

Lastly the button saying argue. There are many definitions, but the baseline is the connotation, they simply opted for a synonym of the word they were looking for: debate, and sadly its connotation got lost in translation. I hope you got the point though.
So to wrap that up, what I meant was the societal connotation of the word "argue", which references the picture I had in mind when writing the question.
#2
"The debate in the topic is "will arguing help or detriment your cause?" while my opponent lists an example in which it appears one debater is selfish for brining up his case this does not answer the question. This example only displays a scenario in which the debater is seen in a bad light but not his case. Although a debater may appear to be selfish the debate at hand and weather or not its detrimental to his cause is the main point my opponent should bring up." This is what you said.
I do not think you understood the allusion, and thus I will use a different one, maybe one more clear. If a man says to me that I should mention a number 1 - 10, and on guessing the right number he will give me a lot of money, followed by me being free to go on with whatever it is I was doing, but on guessing the wrong number, if it is so, I am still free, I would mention a number.
I mentioned above two options
(
One: The arguer does not influence the other,
Two: The arguer influences the other toward his/her beliefs.
)
as a result of an argument, thus by arguing you are taking a chance as to help your cause, and if you don't, well oh well, it's not like you hurt anything in concern with your cause. That is what I meant by the gambling example.
Because you posed the question "Although a debater may appear to be selfish the debate at hand and whether or not its detrimental to his cause is the main point my opponent should bring up." I thought I would answer.
I brought it up by saying:
One: The arguer does not influence the other,
Two: The arguer influences the other toward his/her beliefs.
Hence there is no way it could cause harm.
So to wrap up, you simply had a small misconception.

The last part of your debate I found most interesting. You said, and you even provided a very nice example (Galileo), that arguments can be detrimental to others because, for example, one may argue with the pope, and that could be heard by the public, and then the pope is suddenly less valued by society, or in your case the church.
This is entirely true, but what I specifically said was the cause (why we want to argue in the first place). Will arguing help one's cause? Or in other words, will shouting/bickering with someone help influence them or detriment them in terms of one's cause (set of beliefs).
And the answer is, as I have stated before, that it will not detriment them.
If you can refute the claim that I just made, I would like to hear it, but as of right now, my main point still stands, as I put it in my opening.
Now to go over briefly the crux of my argument, as you have heard me state so many times before. The cause of the argument is the topic, and this is because there are many moving pieces to an argument, one of them may be like you said, the possible outside side-effects, but then again, maybe one of them is stress. Whether one person values one greater than the other is his/her own personal preference--he/she was probably born liking one more than the other--but for all the people here on this website, I think I can safely say that cause outweighs stress or even possible outside side-effects (Galileo was going to put his point out even if it meant incarceration). This is why I chose cause, and in terms of cause I base my argument.
twighlighttrees

Con

I must withdrawal from the argument based on my inability to formulate an argument based on my opponents deffinition. I am unable to understand his point and one more round is not sufficient to defend my position.
Debate Round No. 2
Mead

Pro

My apologies for not being clear, I put a lot of time into making it so.
twighlighttrees

Con

twighlighttrees forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.